I don't imagine it does all of that same stuff. I've been using most of these things for decades now. There's an awful lot of stuff in windows that someone doesn't need. There's very little that no one needs, but for any given user, I can usually disable a good 80% of the system. I used to do it to lock down a kiosk, for example. It's amazing how many files I'd outright delete from the OS. Loads of services and drivers and executable and panels, and such. I can't imagine any other OS would support quite so many things.
My grandfather, now 92 years old, has been screaming at his condo building for two decades now. They have a pool, and a sauna. It's an electric sauna. Because it takes time to warm up, people turn it on, go for a quick swim, and come back to it 15 minutes later when it's hot. In the end, the electric sauna runs electric current through a resistor for an hour to heat up and stay hot for the people inside. It winds up being something rediculous like 10 kWh for a 1 hour sauna, where just a few drops of liquid fuel would easily achieve the same levels of heat, at a tiny fraction of the cost.
The energy loss across the electrical grid is staggering when you look at it from cradle to grave. It winds up being close to or over 40%, and it's absurd.
Defragging a potentially huge disk, in the background, on-the-fly, so the disk never slows down. File search index, in the background, on-the-fly, so you can search faster. You can turn this off. Full window dragging, and many other graphics enhancements. You can turn these off. Is the printer still there? Let's check again. Port polling, did you know that a USB port might gett polled 50'000 times per second? You can turn this down. A lot. Scheduled tasks. Oh so many scheduled tasks. You probably have over 1'000 defined. Is the internet still connected? Let's check again. An actual software Firewall. You can turn it off, or make it much simpler. Multi-user, multi-profile. Everything gets doubled. Is the printer still there? Let's check again. Is the internet still connected? Let's check again. Event logging. Windows knows what it's doing, because it takes the time to write it down. The windows registry. It's probably the single most reliable aspect of any operating system. It's incredibly fast, always-on, used tens of thousands of times in a single moment by a any application -- my graphics suite writes 12'000 registry entries when I close the application. And you never need to worry about it getting corrupted. No fewer than eight different scripting languages available at any moment. Twenty versions of a single DLL loaded concurrently, for cross-decade application compatibility.
It's not just an operating system. It's a generic operating system that can run anything from decades ago. My 1985 application still runs on my vista machine, which is still running smoothly 7 years after I built it, and now it's running software 7 years newer than it is. iOS doesn't do that. Neither does OS X. Neither does Android.
But there's always been a version of windows with better battery life. It used to be called XP embedded. And it was exactly what you expected it to be -- you got to just start turning off huge parts of windows. You're welcome to do it. No, you don't want to. You don't want things to be slower, and you don't want to lose all of those great features. And many are tied together.
And that's why you chose a windows machine in the first place. Not because it does the bare minimum, and hence saves battery life, but because it does everything it's always done at a reasonable battery life.
But hey. If you want to complain about power vs features, I want you to look at my tvision's on-screen menu system. Now it's a smart tv, with a menu of icons to all sorts of dumb shit. And yet, just scrolling through those pages of icons is slower than my speak'n'spell. My tvision is plugged into the wall, with as much power as it wants. The led light bulb consumes more power than the computer running the on-screen menu. Why? I have no idea. But it also doesn't have a pre-amp, so I can't plug in any headphones or larger speakers without an optical cable and a home theatre amp/receiver. Thanks for that.
You're not reading. I was 12. I was mature enough to not kill myself. I was mature enough to ignore the many out there who wanted me to. And that was in the age when bullying was permitted. Perhaps the issue here is that there isn't enough bullying early on. By the time she's 12, she hasn't had enough experience. Perhaps she'd been coddled from birth. Perhaps she simply wasn't independent enough.
Um, it's not undeserved. It's very much deserved. See, I lived, I never tried to die, and I never failed at killing myself. That actually does make me morally and mentally superior to someone who didn't live, died, or failed at trying. See, that's what success is. Learn the word. It means "coming after". As in 2 succeeds 1.
You need to sit back and sit down, and define what it would mean to suck -- as a 12 year old. If your definition of failure as a human doesn't include intentionally killing yourself of your own free will, well then sure, maybe being human in your world includes being that feeble. But for those of us who've been competing since age 5, working since age 9, starting a business at age 14, the concept of being such a delicate flower isn't an acceptable trait for a human.
It's not a part of being human. It's a failure to being human. See the difference?
I have zero interest in researching some singular historical scenario. Proper research covers a wide range of cases. No singular one should affect your perspectives. If it did, then you failed at learning. That too is simple. I have no need to learn American History. I don't live in your country. When you learn my history, maybe then I'll think about learning yours. Self-centred much?
So I'll end this the same way as I started it. Go kill yourself, if that's what you want to do. This try, try not to fail. And stop making it acceptable for others to try to kill themselves. Because that's exactly what you're doing. You're taking the credit and blame and responsibility and often accountability out of their hands.
That's immoral.
So yes, that's just one more way in which I am superior to you. I give credit where credit is due.
Or I've resisted much of it. You might try fighting back once in a while. And yeah, I live the kind of life that has everyone around me telling me to change, every day. Grow a pair. You lock your front door from intruders. Lock your mind the same way. I've run away from many such influences. I've fought many more.
Regarding Hitler -- I don't know who Charles Manson is -- hiring someone (and paying them) to kill someone puts you in the accountability seat. It always has.
Being proud that you could convince someone to do something extreme is a valid point of pride. It doesn't really matter what the act is. If someone gives you that kind of power over their life, you can be proud of that. It basically means that they gave you more control over their life than you have over yours. That's impressive. See it that way.
You ought to be able to resist someone telling you to kill yourself. It really isn't difficult to NOT kill yourself. If you failed at killing yourself, well then you suck at something that is quite easy to do. So if you actually intended to kill yourself, and you simply missed, then you really aren't very co-ordinated.
Like I said before, there's never been any good reason to kill yourself. I can see some cultures choose to except a small handful of very specific scenarios. Even those don't include some random person telling you to do so.
So here's a complicated scenario for you. I don't believe there's any reason to kill yourself. I'm upset that you tried, because it expresses your devaluing of life in general, and by extension my life. I'm even more upset that you failed in your attempt, because it supports others' opinions that suicide should be illegal and I believe your life is your own, to do with whatever you please. In each case, the reasons behind your actions make zero difference. I'm very-much results-driven.
If that's sounds threatening, you don't understand the meaning of the word. The threat would have been "I'm going to make you drink bleach and die."
The reason that death-threats are themselves illegal is because the only way to defend against such a threat is to act proactively, which means escalating the violence. Anyone who believes your threat is forced to attack you to save themselves. It's an immediately life-threatening scenario for them. So you've effectively put out a hit on yourself.
In this case, there was no threat made with regard to the bleach. Just a request made of someone who could simply refuse it.
I'm assuming that a 12-year-old girl has been taught that her peers aren't able to control her actions. I certainly had no trouble understanding that concept.
But more importantly here, I'm assuming that the "offenders" in this case understood exactly that, and should not be punished for it. Perhaps ironically, it would seem that the "victim" here confused them by making it seem as though they did have such power, when in actual fact, it was this "victim" that chose to take the action. No one forced her to jump.
Unless they did. Unless the pushed her off the silo. Unless they pushed her up the ladder -- which I'll accept as the penultimate push.
Look at what you're saying. If such peers can force someone to kill themselves, then they can certainly force her to take drugs, drink, smoke, starve, steal, fight, kill, and cheat. So are you now going to blame the "offenders" for everything anyone ever does? I was just following orders, from everybody, always, for everything.
Small bruises that never accumulate into anything that restricts me? On all sides of me without restricting my movements or substantially blocking my view?
They do that now. It goes by many names. You've just described public transit, hockey games, music concerts, baseball games, football games, lacross games, office buildings, busses, the shopping district, every worthwhile restaurant, and movie theatres. Okay, maybe not lacross games.
My limit is when it restricts me from doing something. 200 bruises a day very much would. 10 bruises a day very much does not. We can adjust those numbers for the enderly if you like. But the metric remains the same.
It's not emotional trauma that's the issue. It's loss of the use of that bone until it heals. Same with bruises. Small bruises that don't affect the use of your body aren't an issue -- you can bump into someone on the street. Bruises that result in significant pain are an issue.
I can't overcome a broken bone until it heals. I'm not involved in breaking the bone. You broke my bone. I had nothing to do with it.
Bullying -- verbal bullying -- requires me to be a part of it in order for it to have any effect. You can say whatever you like, if I don't hear it, it doesn't affect me. Similarly, if I hear it but don't listen to it, it has zero effect. Similarly again, if I listen to it but ascribe zero value to it, it has zero effect.
The only way for your words to hurt me is for me to value your words. Since you aren't my mother, and you aren't my friend, nothing that you say can hurt me.
We're going to stop short of threats of physical violence, since those are in-themselves illegal for other reasons.
And so I ask again: what would cause you to intentionally choose to kill yourself? What could anyone say to you, no matter how many times, from whatever proximity?
We're not talking about convincing someone to do something they aren't happy about. We're talking about convincing someone to kill themselves. There are, perhaps, a handful of reasons to kill yourself. None of them applied here.
At issue is only this: why is such resilience particular to me? It never used to be. I wasn't the only one who grew up with the common advice.
So if you've found yourself unable to handle the verbal comments of strangers, colleagues, friends, and family, well, again I ask: what can I say to manipulate you into deleting your slashdot account and never coming back?
Still words. There's a strong line between verbal and physical. I won't let you cross it. But do let me know what I can type here that will cause you to jump off of a silo. I'd like to know, because names will never hurt me.
We've come a long way from sticks and stones; I wonder in which direction. Since when is it illegal to tell someone that you hate them, repeatedly even?
Lookup the definition of the word "school". You'll find that it has nothing to do with education -- you went to school for decades, and they never told you what it was. You don't even understand my condescension. Few fish do.
But what else should I expect from a coward? If you aren't willing to put your name to your arguments, then you devalue both your name and your arguments.
Here's a tip. In the real world, when your house is on the line for everything you do, the "data size" never changes. The data shape can. The data does. But the data size does not. If you can understand why, then you've left the world of academia. If you can't, then everything you do is an academic exercise.
Dude, the only reason we're measuring the algorithm is to measure it's impact on resources -- time being three of those resources. No one with an actual dataset care about it approaching infinity. We care about it approaching the maximum size that it can approach -- which has real-world bounds well below infinity.
Stop doing homework. Start investing your own money into things. "abstract" takes on a whole new meaning. You're forgetting that every time I use Big O notation, I can lose my house. It's that simple. It's my house. The only thing "abstract" about my use of Big O is how it can take away my house.
Yes it's the argument that's important. And you've ascribed zero value to it. I can't debate with a coward -- I can't tell if it's one person or multiple persons. Ask someone to finally give you a name, and then I'll tell you how the syllabus put comparison sorting three months ahead of discrete sorting. I'll tell you how sorting was taught without considering the data.
The only reason to use big-o notation in the first place is to figure out whether or not to change your algorithm in order to make it run faster. We're not measuring something for fun. We're measuring it so we can take action -- that's why we do things.
That higher start-up or per-element cost is a perfectly valid reason to change an algorithm. That cost can result in more time spent than substantially changing the data size. I don't care how my algorithm will perform on data I don't have. I car how it will perform on data that I do have.
When we step out of school, and into reality, 1/2 is very different than 2/4. For example, you can have 1/2 of a couple, you can't have 2/4 of a couple. The denominator describes a potential subdivision. It needs to be possible.
Math ends when the bedroom door is 81% open, and you realize that the door is still open.
You really need to get out of school, and run a rel-world challenge. See what happens when it's your time and money and reputation on the line. The word "course" has a very different meaning outside of school.
You might be good to remember that mathematics, like most languages, describe observations. When the observations differ from the descriptions, it's the descriptions that are incorrect, not the observations.
When O(2n + 1) takes four hours, and O(n) takes two hours, they are simply different. The faster one is the better one. The reasons behind why it is or is not faster, and how that relationship may or may not change for significantly larger or smaller data sets is irrelevant. This is the data set. This is the faster way. Predictions of other scenarios simply doesn't matter.
You are certainly correct about the discrete data. My point was that sorting algorithms in first-year university computer science didn't make the distinction that you just did in one sentence. That makes you smarter than everything that was taught in that class. Plain and simple.
Actually, it's the other way around. I didn't start this way. But I kept getting brought into projects where the procedures and policies for getting things done were bigger than the things actually being done!
Take a big huge web-site, for example. A proper business-class web-site, full on-line customer application. A listing page, listing widget prices. Two changes please. Make all widgets of type A show their prices in red, instead of blue text. Show a 50% discount for any logged in user living in Florida.
To do so in that world was hell. They had to work in a non-live duplicate. They had to go through QA. They had to go through version control. They had to merge conflicts. They had to push mirrors. They had to script database structure changes. They needed all of the infrastructure of duplicate servers and development environments. They had to document the change.
It's a real-world, real-time business. They make these sorts of minor changes every month. It's a minor change to them, because in their business it's easy to discount stuff and it's easy to change colours. It was major for their development team because now it required user logins, and different caching, and logic where there previously wasn't.
So they had me rebuild it all in my way.
Now, those types of drastic-to-code, simple-to-business are now simple-to-code. Code is now matched to business. simple-simple. difficult-difficult. My clients are fine with me making the coding difficult when their business side is difficult. No one cares that the site needs more money to handle ten times as many visitors even though other platforms don't. It's hard for them to get ten times as many customers, and when they do, they'll throw money at me.
So now, those types of changes get done on the live site, public or hidden, in real time, in seconds, with zero QA, zero testing, all with the client on the phone. We tweak it twenty times during a ten minute phone call. They pay the bill. Everyone's happy.
So my question to you is this: when a client wants to make a functional change to their public web-site, can you do it with them over the phone within a 30-minute call? If you can't, you simply don't get these clients. And these are what make my business what it is -- talking to clients. That's the point. I'm not faceless. I'm the guy they turn to when they want to experiment with their business -- in real-time.
No spec. No quote. No proposal. No days. No testing. No mirroring. No pushing. No version conflicts. No contractors. No middle-management. No junior programmers.
One phone call. Ten minutes. Done. And I get paid by the value of that feature to the client's business -- plus the business-benefit of having it done in real-time.
And honestly, screenstyle="color:model.type.map(a,red,blue);" really doesn't require more than 30 seconds. and if human.coordinate.province eq florida then math model.price / 2 else model.price really doesn't require more than two minutes. And creating a login page, a signup page, a few e-mail notifications, and the basic account management adminterface doesn't take more than 7 minutes. Another ten minutes on the phone to tweak the visuals together and it's all done.
You can't do that. I know you can't, because long ago I was like you. I was taught the same carp as you were taught. Probably by the same persons. They teach that because it's the easiest to teach. Things are isolated, quantized, and able to be checked at each stage of the process. That means it can be taught stage by stage, supervised stage by stage, and managed stage by stage. It can be signed off stage by stage, priced stage by stage, and paid for stage by stage. All of that is internal to the development house, and a big waste of the clients' time and money.
My way certainly doesn't scale with many developers working on one task. That's because in my world, many developers on one task doesn't work. To be clear, that's not true of other industries, but in my industry it's certainly true. So my systems would fail miserably if more than three developers were to work on one task independently together. For business reasons, my actual max is two developers on any one task; any more winds up requiring long spec documents signed by the client in-advance, which completely ruins any time and cost savings. And that's why I've developed my platform to rid myself of most of the efforts that require large development teams -- testing, debugging, multiple versions, staged releases, mirrors and non-live development, etc.. I discovered that when all of that is eliminated, large teams are useless.
Maintenance, however, is a totally different story. My way has way better maintenance. I've put code where I want it -- not where it "should" be. That means I put interactive code together. For larger more long-term projects, I organize code to actually prioritize maintenance -- one business feature is one file, for example. For smaller shorter-term projects, I deprioritize maintenance -- which won't wind up being required at all -- and I instead prioritize injection points or visual ideals or speed of development.
That's really my point. By being able to choose what I prioritize -- maintenance, upgrades, enhancements, security, safety, testing, reporting, visuals, connectivity, etc. -- I can form my code around a client's requirements. And by raising that resolution way beyond the level of the project, to the level of the feature, I can separate project parts based on their usage, vitality, longevity, or, and here's the kicker, profitability to me and value to my client.
The focus is to solve problems with computers; those problems aren't supposed to be fabricated academic problems; they are real-world client problems. I don't care about the "proper" way of doing things. Like you said, if you're prioritizing large development teams, then you're solving your internal problems, not your clients' problems. You need to balance those two, and the client is only paying for one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't imagine it does all of that same stuff. I've been using most of these things for decades now. There's an awful lot of stuff in windows that someone doesn't need. There's very little that no one needs, but for any given user, I can usually disable a good 80% of the system. I used to do it to lock down a kiosk, for example. It's amazing how many files I'd outright delete from the OS. Loads of services and drivers and executable and panels, and such. I can't imagine any other OS would support quite so many things.
My grandfather, now 92 years old, has been screaming at his condo building for two decades now. They have a pool, and a sauna. It's an electric sauna. Because it takes time to warm up, people turn it on, go for a quick swim, and come back to it 15 minutes later when it's hot. In the end, the electric sauna runs electric current through a resistor for an hour to heat up and stay hot for the people inside. It winds up being something rediculous like 10 kWh for a 1 hour sauna, where just a few drops of liquid fuel would easily achieve the same levels of heat, at a tiny fraction of the cost.
The energy loss across the electrical grid is staggering when you look at it from cradle to grave. It winds up being close to or over 40%, and it's absurd.
Defragging a potentially huge disk, in the background, on-the-fly, so the disk never slows down.
File search index, in the background, on-the-fly, so you can search faster. You can turn this off.
Full window dragging, and many other graphics enhancements. You can turn these off.
Is the printer still there? Let's check again.
Port polling, did you know that a USB port might gett polled 50'000 times per second? You can turn this down. A lot.
Scheduled tasks. Oh so many scheduled tasks. You probably have over 1'000 defined.
Is the internet still connected? Let's check again.
An actual software Firewall. You can turn it off, or make it much simpler.
Multi-user, multi-profile. Everything gets doubled.
Is the printer still there? Let's check again.
Is the internet still connected? Let's check again.
Event logging. Windows knows what it's doing, because it takes the time to write it down.
The windows registry. It's probably the single most reliable aspect of any operating system. It's incredibly fast, always-on, used tens of thousands of times in a single moment by a any application -- my graphics suite writes 12'000 registry entries when I close the application. And you never need to worry about it getting corrupted.
No fewer than eight different scripting languages available at any moment.
Twenty versions of a single DLL loaded concurrently, for cross-decade application compatibility.
It's not just an operating system. It's a generic operating system that can run anything from decades ago. My 1985 application still runs on my vista machine, which is still running smoothly 7 years after I built it, and now it's running software 7 years newer than it is. iOS doesn't do that. Neither does OS X. Neither does Android.
But there's always been a version of windows with better battery life. It used to be called XP embedded. And it was exactly what you expected it to be -- you got to just start turning off huge parts of windows. You're welcome to do it. No, you don't want to. You don't want things to be slower, and you don't want to lose all of those great features. And many are tied together.
And that's why you chose a windows machine in the first place. Not because it does the bare minimum, and hence saves battery life, but because it does everything it's always done at a reasonable battery life.
But hey. If you want to complain about power vs features, I want you to look at my tvision's on-screen menu system. Now it's a smart tv, with a menu of icons to all sorts of dumb shit. And yet, just scrolling through those pages of icons is slower than my speak'n'spell. My tvision is plugged into the wall, with as much power as it wants. The led light bulb consumes more power than the computer running the on-screen menu. Why? I have no idea. But it also doesn't have a pre-amp, so I can't plug in any headphones or larger speakers without an optical cable and a home theatre amp/receiver. Thanks for that.
All that's fine. It doesn't preclude someone from doing it. Sociopathy is an important, if not vital part of society.
You're not reading. I was 12. I was mature enough to not kill myself. I was mature enough to ignore the many out there who wanted me to. And that was in the age when bullying was permitted. Perhaps the issue here is that there isn't enough bullying early on. By the time she's 12, she hasn't had enough experience. Perhaps she'd been coddled from birth. Perhaps she simply wasn't independent enough.
Um, it's not undeserved. It's very much deserved. See, I lived, I never tried to die, and I never failed at killing myself. That actually does make me morally and mentally superior to someone who didn't live, died, or failed at trying. See, that's what success is. Learn the word. It means "coming after". As in 2 succeeds 1.
You need to sit back and sit down, and define what it would mean to suck -- as a 12 year old. If your definition of failure as a human doesn't include intentionally killing yourself of your own free will, well then sure, maybe being human in your world includes being that feeble. But for those of us who've been competing since age 5, working since age 9, starting a business at age 14, the concept of being such a delicate flower isn't an acceptable trait for a human.
It's not a part of being human. It's a failure to being human. See the difference?
I have zero interest in researching some singular historical scenario. Proper research covers a wide range of cases. No singular one should affect your perspectives. If it did, then you failed at learning. That too is simple. I have no need to learn American History. I don't live in your country. When you learn my history, maybe then I'll think about learning yours. Self-centred much?
So I'll end this the same way as I started it. Go kill yourself, if that's what you want to do. This try, try not to fail. And stop making it acceptable for others to try to kill themselves. Because that's exactly what you're doing. You're taking the credit and blame and responsibility and often accountability out of their hands.
That's immoral.
So yes, that's just one more way in which I am superior to you. I give credit where credit is due.
Or I've resisted much of it. You might try fighting back once in a while. And yeah, I live the kind of life that has everyone around me telling me to change, every day. Grow a pair. You lock your front door from intruders. Lock your mind the same way. I've run away from many such influences. I've fought many more.
Regarding Hitler -- I don't know who Charles Manson is -- hiring someone (and paying them) to kill someone puts you in the accountability seat. It always has.
Being proud that you could convince someone to do something extreme is a valid point of pride. It doesn't really matter what the act is. If someone gives you that kind of power over their life, you can be proud of that. It basically means that they gave you more control over their life than you have over yours. That's impressive. See it that way.
You ought to be able to resist someone telling you to kill yourself. It really isn't difficult to NOT kill yourself. If you failed at killing yourself, well then you suck at something that is quite easy to do. So if you actually intended to kill yourself, and you simply missed, then you really aren't very co-ordinated.
Like I said before, there's never been any good reason to kill yourself. I can see some cultures choose to except a small handful of very specific scenarios. Even those don't include some random person telling you to do so.
So here's a complicated scenario for you. I don't believe there's any reason to kill yourself. I'm upset that you tried, because it expresses your devaluing of life in general, and by extension my life. I'm even more upset that you failed in your attempt, because it supports others' opinions that suicide should be illegal and I believe your life is your own, to do with whatever you please. In each case, the reasons behind your actions make zero difference. I'm very-much results-driven.
If that's sounds threatening, you don't understand the meaning of the word. The threat would have been "I'm going to make you drink bleach and die."
The reason that death-threats are themselves illegal is because the only way to defend against such a threat is to act proactively, which means escalating the violence. Anyone who believes your threat is forced to attack you to save themselves. It's an immediately life-threatening scenario for them. So you've effectively put out a hit on yourself.
In this case, there was no threat made with regard to the bleach. Just a request made of someone who could simply refuse it.
I'm assuming that a 12-year-old girl has been taught that her peers aren't able to control her actions. I certainly had no trouble understanding that concept.
But more importantly here, I'm assuming that the "offenders" in this case understood exactly that, and should not be punished for it. Perhaps ironically, it would seem that the "victim" here confused them by making it seem as though they did have such power, when in actual fact, it was this "victim" that chose to take the action. No one forced her to jump.
Unless they did. Unless the pushed her off the silo. Unless they pushed her up the ladder -- which I'll accept as the penultimate push.
Look at what you're saying. If such peers can force someone to kill themselves, then they can certainly force her to take drugs, drink, smoke, starve, steal, fight, kill, and cheat. So are you now going to blame the "offenders" for everything anyone ever does? I was just following orders, from everybody, always, for everything.
Small bruises that never accumulate into anything that restricts me? On all sides of me without restricting my movements or substantially blocking my view?
They do that now. It goes by many names. You've just described public transit, hockey games, music concerts, baseball games, football games, lacross games, office buildings, busses, the shopping district, every worthwhile restaurant, and movie theatres. Okay, maybe not lacross games.
My limit is when it restricts me from doing something. 200 bruises a day very much would. 10 bruises a day very much does not. We can adjust those numbers for the enderly if you like. But the metric remains the same.
It's not emotional trauma that's the issue. It's loss of the use of that bone until it heals. Same with bruises. Small bruises that don't affect the use of your body aren't an issue -- you can bump into someone on the street. Bruises that result in significant pain are an issue.
I can't overcome a broken bone until it heals. I'm not involved in breaking the bone. You broke my bone. I had nothing to do with it.
Bullying -- verbal bullying -- requires me to be a part of it in order for it to have any effect. You can say whatever you like, if I don't hear it, it doesn't affect me. Similarly, if I hear it but don't listen to it, it has zero effect. Similarly again, if I listen to it but ascribe zero value to it, it has zero effect.
The only way for your words to hurt me is for me to value your words. Since you aren't my mother, and you aren't my friend, nothing that you say can hurt me.
It's that simple.
We're going to stop short of threats of physical violence, since those are in-themselves illegal for other reasons.
And so I ask again: what would cause you to intentionally choose to kill yourself? What could anyone say to you, no matter how many times, from whatever proximity?
We're not talking about convincing someone to do something they aren't happy about. We're talking about convincing someone to kill themselves. There are, perhaps, a handful of reasons to kill yourself. None of them applied here.
At issue is only this: why is such resilience particular to me? It never used to be. I wasn't the only one who grew up with the common advice.
So if you've found yourself unable to handle the verbal comments of strangers, colleagues, friends, and family, well, again I ask: what can I say to manipulate you into deleting your slashdot account and never coming back?
Still words. There's a strong line between verbal and physical. I won't let you cross it. But do let me know what I can type here that will cause you to jump off of a silo. I'd like to know, because names will never hurt me.
We've come a long way from sticks and stones; I wonder in which direction. Since when is it illegal to tell someone that you hate them, repeatedly even?
Lookup the definition of the word "school". You'll find that it has nothing to do with education -- you went to school for decades, and they never told you what it was. You don't even understand my condescension. Few fish do.
But what else should I expect from a coward? If you aren't willing to put your name to your arguments, then you devalue both your name and your arguments.
Here's a tip. In the real world, when your house is on the line for everything you do, the "data size" never changes. The data shape can. The data does. But the data size does not. If you can understand why, then you've left the world of academia. If you can't, then everything you do is an academic exercise.
Dude, the only reason we're measuring the algorithm is to measure it's impact on resources -- time being three of those resources. No one with an actual dataset care about it approaching infinity. We care about it approaching the maximum size that it can approach -- which has real-world bounds well below infinity.
Stop doing homework. Start investing your own money into things. "abstract" takes on a whole new meaning. You're forgetting that every time I use Big O notation, I can lose my house. It's that simple. It's my house. The only thing "abstract" about my use of Big O is how it can take away my house.
Yes it's the argument that's important. And you've ascribed zero value to it. I can't debate with a coward -- I can't tell if it's one person or multiple persons. Ask someone to finally give you a name, and then I'll tell you how the syllabus put comparison sorting three months ahead of discrete sorting. I'll tell you how sorting was taught without considering the data.
If you aren't willing to put your name to your argument, then it has zero value -- both your argument and your name.
You haven't learned that if you aren't willing to stand by your arguments, then they have zero value to you. Get a name.
Put your name to your arguments. If you aren't willing to stand by them, they haze zero value to you.
Taught, second to other sorting algorithms. Or are you saying that MIT is just programming in java too?
Look up some curriculae. Find quicksort, and find bucket sort. See how many months apart they are.
The only reason to use big-o notation in the first place is to figure out whether or not to change your algorithm in order to make it run faster. We're not measuring something for fun. We're measuring it so we can take action -- that's why we do things.
That higher start-up or per-element cost is a perfectly valid reason to change an algorithm. That cost can result in more time spent than substantially changing the data size. I don't care how my algorithm will perform on data I don't have. I car how it will perform on data that I do have.
When we step out of school, and into reality, 1/2 is very different than 2/4. For example, you can have 1/2 of a couple, you can't have 2/4 of a couple. The denominator describes a potential subdivision. It needs to be possible.
Math ends when the bedroom door is 81% open, and you realize that the door is still open.
You really need to get out of school, and run a rel-world challenge. See what happens when it's your time and money and reputation on the line. The word "course" has a very different meaning outside of school.
You might be good to remember that mathematics, like most languages, describe observations. When the observations differ from the descriptions, it's the descriptions that are incorrect, not the observations.
When O(2n + 1) takes four hours, and O(n) takes two hours, they are simply different. The faster one is the better one. The reasons behind why it is or is not faster, and how that relationship may or may not change for significantly larger or smaller data sets is irrelevant. This is the data set. This is the faster way. Predictions of other scenarios simply doesn't matter.
You are certainly correct about the discrete data. My point was that sorting algorithms in first-year university computer science didn't make the distinction that you just did in one sentence. That makes you smarter than everything that was taught in that class. Plain and simple.
Actually, it's the other way around. I didn't start this way. But I kept getting brought into projects where the procedures and policies for getting things done were bigger than the things actually being done!
Take a big huge web-site, for example. A proper business-class web-site, full on-line customer application. A listing page, listing widget prices. Two changes please. Make all widgets of type A show their prices in red, instead of blue text. Show a 50% discount for any logged in user living in Florida.
To do so in that world was hell. They had to work in a non-live duplicate. They had to go through QA. They had to go through version control. They had to merge conflicts. They had to push mirrors. They had to script database structure changes. They needed all of the infrastructure of duplicate servers and development environments. They had to document the change.
It's a real-world, real-time business. They make these sorts of minor changes every month. It's a minor change to them, because in their business it's easy to discount stuff and it's easy to change colours. It was major for their development team because now it required user logins, and different caching, and logic where there previously wasn't.
So they had me rebuild it all in my way.
Now, those types of drastic-to-code, simple-to-business are now simple-to-code. Code is now matched to business. simple-simple. difficult-difficult. My clients are fine with me making the coding difficult when their business side is difficult. No one cares that the site needs more money to handle ten times as many visitors even though other platforms don't. It's hard for them to get ten times as many customers, and when they do, they'll throw money at me.
So now, those types of changes get done on the live site, public or hidden, in real time, in seconds, with zero QA, zero testing, all with the client on the phone. We tweak it twenty times during a ten minute phone call. They pay the bill. Everyone's happy.
So my question to you is this: when a client wants to make a functional change to their public web-site, can you do it with them over the phone within a 30-minute call? If you can't, you simply don't get these clients. And these are what make my business what it is -- talking to clients. That's the point. I'm not faceless. I'm the guy they turn to when they want to experiment with their business -- in real-time.
No spec. No quote. No proposal. No days. No testing. No mirroring. No pushing. No version conflicts. No contractors. No middle-management. No junior programmers.
One phone call. Ten minutes. Done. And I get paid by the value of that feature to the client's business -- plus the business-benefit of having it done in real-time.
And honestly, screenstyle="color:model.type.map(a,red,blue);" really doesn't require more than 30 seconds. and if human.coordinate.province eq florida then math model.price / 2 else model.price really doesn't require more than two minutes. And creating a login page, a signup page, a few e-mail notifications, and the basic account management adminterface doesn't take more than 7 minutes. Another ten minutes on the phone to tweak the visuals together and it's all done.
You can't do that. I know you can't, because long ago I was like you. I was taught the same carp as you were taught. Probably by the same persons. They teach that because it's the easiest to teach. Things are isolated, quantized, and able to be checked at each stage of the process. That means it can be taught stage by stage, supervised stage by stage, and managed stage by stage. It can be signed off stage by stage, priced stage by stage, and paid for stage by stage. All of that is internal to the development house, and a big waste of the clients' time and money.
My way certainly doesn't scale with many developers working on one task. That's because in my world, many developers on one task doesn't work. To be clear, that's not true of other industries, but in my industry it's certainly true. So my systems would fail miserably if more than three developers were to work on one task independently together. For business reasons, my actual max is two developers on any one task; any more winds up requiring long spec documents signed by the client in-advance, which completely ruins any time and cost savings. And that's why I've developed my platform to rid myself of most of the efforts that require large development teams -- testing, debugging, multiple versions, staged releases, mirrors and non-live development, etc.. I discovered that when all of that is eliminated, large teams are useless.
Maintenance, however, is a totally different story. My way has way better maintenance. I've put code where I want it -- not where it "should" be. That means I put interactive code together. For larger more long-term projects, I organize code to actually prioritize maintenance -- one business feature is one file, for example. For smaller shorter-term projects, I deprioritize maintenance -- which won't wind up being required at all -- and I instead prioritize injection points or visual ideals or speed of development.
That's really my point. By being able to choose what I prioritize -- maintenance, upgrades, enhancements, security, safety, testing, reporting, visuals, connectivity, etc. -- I can form my code around a client's requirements. And by raising that resolution way beyond the level of the project, to the level of the feature, I can separate project parts based on their usage, vitality, longevity, or, and here's the kicker, profitability to me and value to my client.
The focus is to solve problems with computers; those problems aren't supposed to be fabricated academic problems; they are real-world client problems. I don't care about the "proper" way of doing things. Like you said, if you're prioritizing large development teams, then you're solving your internal problems, not your clients' problems. You need to balance those two, and the client is only paying for one of them.